Fred Thompson withdraws
It’s over:
McLean, VA - Senator Fred Thompson today issued the following statement about his campaign for President:
“Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.”
***
Yesterday, I noted the first of many defections. It’ll be interesting to see where the rest of the Fred operatives scatter.
Speaking of scattering, where will the 12 percent of voters favoring Thompson in Florida go?
Bob Krumm took heat for his post-mortem. Looks like he’s owed some apologies.
I’ll repeat what Fred said in South Carolina after his disappointing showing:
“…we need to deserve to lead. That’s what this is all about. Deserving to lead…We’ll always stand strong. Stand strong.”
***
For what it’s worth to you (not much to me), Thompson supporter Al D’Amato goes to McCain.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- BobKrumm.com » Pay to stay
- Fred Thompson drops out | The Anchoress
- Fred Thompson out! Keyboard related forehead trauma at all time high amongst bloggers. « Mr. Skulduggery
- Liberty Pundit
- UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Fred Thompson Drops out of Race
- The Radio Patriot
- This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Fred’s out
- Neocon News » Better make that casket fit for a Fred
- Fred! Withdraws. Who Do I Support Now? — Pirate’s Cove
- Sierra Faith
- Werner Patels - Ideas and Issues
- Plumb Bob Blog » Fred Bows Out
- House of Eratosthenes
- Neocon News » Thompson continues to light up blogosphere, even in exit
- Church and State
- bows
- Huckabee: The Most Reaganesqe « What Is Your Worldview?
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Fred Thompson
Hotline On Call
» Chambliss Wins; 60 Eludes Dems
JustOneMinute
» David Gregory To Host Meet The Press (While Hiding From It)Belmont Club
» A self-made hellRiehl World View
» Update: Chambliss WIns Georgia Run-offGateway Pundit
» 2 Year-Old Moshe Holtzberg Was Beaten By Terrorists... His Murdered Mother Was 6 Months PregnantNewsBusters.org
» Four Years Later, Kerry Admits He's a LiberalHotline On Call
» Obama Records Radio Ad For LA House HopefulPoliPundit.com
» US Capitol Visitor Center Opens
Before anyone asks. Romney. But no entusiaism. No money (usually $2000) nor any of my volunteer time that the GOP usually gets.
If its any of the others, someone tell me why a conservative vote for a liberal, no matter the (R) or (D) by the name? Why shoudl I betray my beliefs once again?
This is great news for Romney. Nice to see Rohrbacher has a little more integrity than Duncan Hunter. Hunter was on Cavuto yesterday, remaining ominously silent on endorsement and the only candidate he chose to trash was Romney on some Bain Capital deal in China. Meanwhile, McCain is running around saying “I didn’t reverse my position on immigration.”
Let’s see Duncan, in 2002 Romney saved the Winter Olympics. That same year he was elected Governor of MA and served for 4 years. That takes him to early 2007 at which time he started running for President. He hasn’t been involved with Bain since sometime before Jan. 2002. He’s not making management decisions there you clown.
Well, some of us have already voted for Thompson thanks to early voting here in Florida. But I would suppose many of those that haven’t will go Romney.
He had it all on a silver platter, but could not run an effective enough campaign or make worthwhile appearances in the debates. I like what he stands for and I’d like to see him get back into congress, but a president he will never be.
Think any of the remaining candidates will be looking for a darn good weblogger?
[Disclaimer: I used to work for Friends of Fred Thompson.]
Except he took it with him.
Maybe she just didn’t like Fred.
I think that all of us have to go to numerous sources to find the information we want. I don’t make up my mind about anyone from what one person or site has to say. And, IMO, that’s not bad. I had no problem finding positive information about Fred on the internet.
I supported Fred from the getgo. Really hoped he would go all the way. However, I feel his organization really wasn’t up to a presidential campaign. And too, how much responsibility of that lies with Fred himself?
I don’t know who I am going to support, but at the moment, am leaning towards Romney. Not because I think he’s the best; but only because he’s the best that’s left. I am hoping we get a Romney/Thompson ticket.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/22/now-it-can-be-told-carl-cameron-says-he-knew-all-along-that-fred-was-only-it-for-the-vp-nomination/
I feel very cheated if this is true.
What if Obama is the nominee?
Seriously, though, how is voting on principle being a “fair-weather Republican/Conservative”? As Rush says, I’m a conservative first. I’m a Republican only insomuch as that party reflects what I believe in. Now that Fred’s out, if Mitt is not the nominee, I’m voting Constitution party.
There’s nothing honorable or principled in supporting a party simply because it’s the party. If the candidate doesn’t reflect my ideals, they’re not getting my vote, regardless of which party he/she belong to.
This article has a bit on what Hunter may have been talking about. I don’t know these guys, can’t vouch for any of it. I hardly think he’s a clown though, mngirl.
Here’s a bit from that article:
“BOB DROGIN: OK. AmPad was basically one of the deals that came back and really caused a problem for Romney back in 1994, when he ran against Ted Kennedy, when he made his first bid for elected office. He ran for the US Senate seat for Massachusetts. AmPad was a company they bought in 1992, and—Bain Capital, sorry—made a big investment and essentially bought the company. And after they bought it, the new management team that went in closed factories, fired a lot of people and really slashed the operations. And when he ran for Senate, some of these striking workers came and picketed him and really dogged his campaign, and it created a pretty ugly labor dispute. I think Kennedy described, you know, Romney at the time as putting profits over people.
And after the campaign was over, they took AmPad public—and he lost—they took AmPad public, and it prospered for about a year, and then it crashed into bankruptcy, and by then Bain—and laid off, you know, several thousand people. By then, Bain Capital had taken out, I was able to document, $102 million. And that was a model that we saw in a number of places. I found about at least a half-a-dozen companies, where Bain Capital essentially bought in; laid people off; stripped it down; took out, in some cases, tens of millions of dollars or hundreds of millions; and then the company crashed into bankruptcy.”
playblu said:
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Though a good lesson for Fred is:
Eighty percent of success is showing up.
- Woody Allen
and
Never confuse movement with action.
- Ernest Hemingway
An important lesson for us who supported him is:
Benford’s law of controversy: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.
and
Demagoguery beats data.
-former House Majority Leader Dick Armey
OK, I guess it’s Plan B…Go Mitt!
At least I shouldn’t have to send Romney any money like I did Fred…
Alohaguy:
Nope not the deal. Something more recent in China. The deal you’re describing is -like it or not- Private Equity. Except that Bain started a lot of companies from the ground up - Staples, Sports Authority, etc. Typically though -net- they create more jobs than they cut, which is true of Romney’s career.
I stand my new estimation of Duncan Hunter, based on his whitless performance on Neil Cavuto - CLOWN. Not understanding that if you haven’t been on the management team for over 7 years you’re not making a huge impact on what the company is doing, and if the company is doing anything illegal, that’s the current government’s fault.
Too bad. Fred was wanted, needed, early on, but arrived too late, arrived DOA. Looks like Ann Coulter and I will both be voting for Romney.
The news is deafly silent about Fred withdrawing. A lot about the death of Heath Ledger though. He was probably a FredHead.
#94
Voting for Hillary (or anyone on the Democrat side) would violate my principles as much as voting for any of the Republicans left in the field. You may call it throwing away my vote, but at least my conscience will be clear that I voted based on what I think is best for America. And yes, I will be voting for a third party.
I’m thinking that retirement is looking pretty good about now. I’ll vote for a third party of my choice, take my retirement money, horses, and guns, and sit out the next four years on my 43 acres in the Rockies.
I’m starting to feel like a Rhodesian, circa 1978
jamesgreenidge said:
If my party is hurrying to run away from me to the left, the back is the only target it provides.
mattymatt10 said:
Or Libertarian. (It seems I favor them anyway.)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0122081miniclip1.html?45
If you want to take potshots at the candidates and relieve the tension.
I think I will donate to John McCains campaign.
It seems every time I throw money at a candiate, they drop out.
I guess I’ll be looking at third party candidates for the first time in my life.
Gad, the dems were offering up big fat juicy losers, and we had to out-loser them. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Most descriptive post in so few words. Sums up the entire Thompson candidacy; I wanted to get behind him, but couldn’t commit because he didn’t seem committed himself.
Thompson’s candidacy was the perfect embodiment of the saying, If you won’t be for yourself, then why should anybody else be for you?
I’m really disappointed in his withdrawal, although I understand his position. Now I have to decide whether to vote by write-in or reluctantly back the Republican nominee. Probably the latter, though, because I don’t want to experience another November 1992.
Michelle! It’s your fault Fred dropped out! The forces of the Malklingons over-powered the Fredulons!
A sad day for me.
We are in for a very ugly time here.
Ronald Reagan values are lost for another 4 long dangerous years here!
Archon, need a ranch hand? I’ll bring my own guns and ammo from Centennial.
Colorado GOP is deader than a doornail - it took the “Moderate” path to self destruction years ago under Owens (Pete Coors ring a bell re: Mitt Romney?).
The national GOP is only now starting to blow up the same way - firs the legislature, then the executive. McCain is a disaster, Bob Beauprez writ large.
Sorry, folks, but this is starting to sound like the whiners on Daily Kos.
I hope people who stay home in a pout this November, and effectively elect a Democrat, are prepared to live with their actions.
Perhaps you should write in “Ross Perot” for president while shooting yourself in the foot.
former Fredheads- go to the Ron Paul side! small government and the Constitution FTW
Ron Paul is a loon.
Lindsay you can kiss my conservative rear.
Why should I care to vote for a liberal? Tell me that. Why should I give my consent to somone who sill violate my trust, and govern opposite to my beleif?
(i.e. Huckbaee, McCain and Guiliani).
It does not matter if there is a D or an R beside the name. A liberal is a liberal, and no conservative should vote for one.
People like you are what got us into this mess. Voting for the cover of the book, and not bothering to read the contents.
Maybe this is what it takes to shake the Country Club up and make them listen to us grass roots, steer the party back to strong positions based on core conservative values.
And on the bright side if the country goes to h*ll in a handbasket, a D will clearly be seen holding the handle like in 1980.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/252730.php
Poll for Fredheads…who are you going to vote for now?
It’s too bad. Fred may not be running for President anymore, but he can still communicate the conservative message.
The scary part is that the remaining RINOs talk more conservative during the primaries than they are.
Even then, Romney still ignores the 2nd Amendment, and talks of rewarding illegal immigrants with citizenship, and sending BBBillion$ in subsidies to Detroit. Don’t get me started on his democrat judicial appointment history.
Will someone please explain how Romney is the least bit conservative? I’m not seeing it.
Without a doubt. I voted twice for a “compassionate conservative”, who ended up trying to sell our country to South America. I won’t make that mistake again with McCan’t, regardless of the consequences for POTUS. Besides, he’s a Dem in RINO clothing anyway. At least if he loses, he’ll probably be too old and feeble to try to run again in four years. And losing would be a handy payback for his part in shamnesty and campaign finance reform. I’ll write in Tancredo. I’ll take honor over selling out any day.
I think Romney is a moderate more than a conservative. He’ll probably get my vote because he’s the best of a bad lot but any Republican is better than socialists Hillary or Obama, IMO.
Ditto, katieanne. Amen.
Won’t stoop to the Colorado guy’s level in this “discussion.”
I really think some of these people are from Daily Kos or the Democratic Underground. I know they are enjoying your dissension and tantrums.
I liked Fred,too. He was my first choice before Romney; yet, realistically I voted for Romney today.
Let me ask you this…do you think Fred Thompson wants you to stay home and let Democrats win? I kinda doubt he would.
Sigh.
Back to Giuliani. He was an excellent mayor of New York, even if there were some issues of which I disagreed with him then, or now.
#107 said:
“Maybe she just didn’t like Fred.”
Who does MM like?? Have you ever read anything remotely positive about the candidates here at all? I thought maybe she would get behind Fred because of his positions on immigration but noooooo she balked about him and criticized him too.
No one is Mr. Right for MM….
I wish Fred had stayed in the race until the results of super Tuesday….I know a lot of people who were going to vote for him.
Sigh….no one for me to vote for now.
Duncan Hunter dropped out and, now, Fred Thompson. Conservatives are dropping like flies from this presidential campaign. What is a conservative to do this go around?
From the remaining field, the best I can fathom voting on Super Tuesday is Mitt Romney. I can’t bring myself to vote for the MSM’s “Maverick”. Huckabee has made too many dramatic flip-flops for me to believe he is sincere. Rudy Giuliani calls himself a conservative but hold positions opposed to the conservative platform. Ron Paul….well….I think he is a loon. Sorry, Paul supporters. I have to say I agree with a couple of things on his platform. But, he is just to unhinged in his thinking on some and articulation of, basically, everything.
Woo hoo. What a presidential election year.
Lindsay said:
“Sorry, folks, but this is starting to sound like the whiners on Daily Kos.
I hope people who stay home in a pout this November, and effectively elect a Democrat, are prepared to live with their actions.”
I would rather have a declared opponent in office, doing what they said they would do than a “friend” doing the same thing. At least you know that you have a fight on your hands.
JP
artbyruth, I know more people who don’t like any of the candidates than people who support someone. Sadly, that’s the way it is this year.
It fills one with dismay that the crop of candidates of Republicans aren’t any better than they are. Don’t we have any good conservatives in politics anymore?
As much as it might be my inclination to stay home and not vote because I really don’t support anyone, I will vote because I can’t stand the thought of Hillary or Obama running the country. We have to keep Republicans in Congress or our country will become more socialistic than it already is.
Hell of a note to vote for the lesser of two evils, but that is what seems to be on the plate for voters this Fall.
Sad but true, KatieAnne. Sad but true.
Okay, when you get three Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones on the SCOTUS or when the military is ground into dust, tell me which conservative King Arthur is going to come riding to the rescue to undo the damage in a short time? I’m not enthused at all by the idea of McCain holding the banner and there are times when I think of switching my registration to Libertarian out of disgust, but you really, REALLY don’t want Empress Hillary or B. Hussein Obama in charge.
The fact of the matter is no conservative standard bearer had the name recognition or the organization to make it as a frontrunner. Fred Thompson had the name recognition, but waited too long to jump in. Duncan Hunter wasn’t well-known on a national level. Tom Tancredo was a one-note candidate, even though I pretty much agree with his take on illegal immigration.
Without the right conservative in the race, running it the right way, you’re going to get moderates and the guys from the country club branch of the party at the forefront. Sorry, but it’s true.
Sorry to see Fred drop out. He was the only true conservative.
This country is rapidly running toward the abyss… Liberal lemmings happily bouncing toward the cliff and jumping off.
Go Mitt!
Apparently, top aides have told reporters that Thompson isn’t endorsing anyone.
Folks, cheer up! Romney-Thompson 2008 is actually a possibility now!
I had a feeling when he took the stage in SC that he would withdrawl this week, That’s to bad I would have liked him to stay in atleast till Feb 5, Fox asked Romney if he would consider Fred for VP running mate he said that he would consider any of those who ran for POTUS.
This is on the lines of something Rush talked about a couple of week’s back and as he say’s alot and has every right to say it “I was right what did I tell you”.
Rush also made a statement on this a week or so ago. Conservitism is an Ideology, you can’t destroy people’s thought’s or their deology no matter how hard you try.
I was going to post a comment, especially about Alphonso, who I know and despise. But this thread is dead and no one will see it.
Ok, I went to Cavuto’s archive and checked it out. Hunter is talking about the Chinese company that bought 3Com, maker of network intrusion detection equipment that the Pentagon uses! Sure, Romney isn’t head of Bain at the moment, but he and his family get a reported $7 - 15 million a year from them. Hunter called on him last year to denounce the deal and Romney didn’t.
This Chinese company apparently also installed networking infrastructure for both the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Saddam in Iraq that were used to try and shoot down US aircraft. I can’t find an exact date, but it was in the 1999 - 2000 era I think.
So, since he is concerned that Romney won’t denounce Bain’s involvement with this company, and is happily accepting the millions of dollars in profit received - indirectly - from the Chinese you think Hunter is a clown? Really?
Wouldn’t a President who isn’t receiving millions of dollars from a Chinese defense contractor that helped Saddam and the Taliban be better than one who is?
Is Newt Gingrich viable at this point in time?
I sure as shite hope so!
Newt Gingrich is no longer a conservative. He thinks “big government” (read higher taxes) is the solution to our ills.
I saw his change coming long ago. No, he’s no conservative.
But, none of the other GOP losers are either. Even Mitt has a mandatory health care plan for us.
I have no interest in any of the remaining field of GOP candidates. They are all unprincipled chameleons, flipping and flopping their positions to win the presidency.
The National Republican Committee has been a disaster.
Its a shame. I wished he had held out until Super Tuesday. He was the only candidate I was enthusiastic about. I was even hopping out of the Libertarian Party so I could vote in my states Republican primary. Now its….meh.
1. Suggestion: You’re her guest here, so act like one. (That’s my first amendment at work.)
2. Observation: She’s tough on all the candidates and that’s a good thing. She’s a model of what the Mainstream Media should do and don’t. We can be the chearleaders, but we rely on the press and commentators to give us the info squarely so we can make an intelligent determination what the hell to cheerlead about. Besides, I’m pretty sure she’s a polite Romney supporter, anyway - she’s been good to Mitt, which as a Rudy supporter bothers me not one bit.
On the issue of abstaining from voting I’ll repreat something I wrote yesterday to someone else on the board, only this time with no apologies:
Calling anyone who stays home and “withholds’ their vote unpatriotic and not fulfillig their patriotic duty doesn’t do justice to their unconscionable selfishness. This means you.
You can figuratively spite whatever voices in your head are tormenting you at the moment, but your behavior if you do contribute to the hurting of millions of your fellow citizens (that’s what’s at stake this time around) is beneath contempt and you can see that the next time you look in the mirror. You’re threats of not voting won’t make the nominee more conservative, and I hope that’s all they are - threats. I’d hate to think anyone could be so into themselves as to put millions of innocent lives at risk at a time of terrorist warfare by sitting out their patriotic duty to their country, and doing so over an idealistic hissy fit.
Childish. Vindictive. Unpatriotic. If those words appeal to you then by all means, be my guest and shirk your patriotic responsibility. To your neighbors. To your kids. To our military. To the future. And I’m sure you’ll sit stewing and feel everso aggrandized for it.
I’ve just been weeping all day at the thought of Romney/McCain.
Dear Fred Thompson, it causes me great sadness to realize that the American public & most pundits would’t recognize REAL if it bit them in the A**. I believe the Good Lord is sparing you & your family the ’slings & arrows’ of a media-nation-gone-insane. THANK YOU FOR RUNNING FOR POTUS…because for a very brief moment a REAL Presidential Candidate emerged!!!!!!!!!
.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/22/thompson-drops-out-of-gop-presidential-race/
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/fred_thompson_quits_from_presi.php
“…but I was surprised by the sniping from our side at Fred based on his sincere and gentlemanly Southern manners. ”
http://stottingoveragain.blogspot.com/2008/01/mr-thompson-will-not-go-to-washington.html
“Fred is not a “rock star” like Obama, nor should we want him to be. Add to that fact that the very idea of Federalism is misunderstood by the majority of Americans. On the whole, Americans are at best politically and Constitutionally ignorant. Americans want flair and flamboyant rhetoric from politicians. I seem to recall that in the early 1930s the Germans wanted that, as well.”
I do notice MM’s bias showing - she has not torn into Romney like she did with Fred. So come out of the Romney closet MM - your backstabbing hatchet job is complete. Its despicabke that you wouldn’t do this openly as Hugh Hewitt did. Probably in fear that you;d beclown yourself as Hugh has. *IF* thats true then you are truly despicable. If not then I owe you an apology.
Again, don’t paint Conservativevs with the “You are evil because you will not vote for a liberal with an R label” brush.
*IF* the GOP presents conservatives with a conservative candidate, they will get us to vote. That was Fred.
Now its Romney, but he is barely conservative, and completely gone on some issues (socialized med for example, and Detroit bailout).
However, the places he is lacking are probably the easiest to fix. IMHO. So he is acceptable. The others are not.
McCain, on the other hand, would be a disaster - immigration, global warming, judges, tax cuts, etc - just wrong in so many places. Then there is Huckabee with his “Blame America First” foreign policy, populist hucksterism, and weakness on judges. Same goes for Rudy re: Judges, 2nd amendment, etc.
So as stated, Romney is the only alternative we have left, even if he is lacking in many areas the Fred was not.
Even if Romney does go off the ranch liek Bush, we can possibly correct him like we did with Bush on immigration.
I do not see that happening with Mr “I know better” McCain, or “God told me to” Huckabee.
And Mr Conservative Cat - that was so much BS you just spewed it was amazing. You’d have made a great communist. PATRIOTISM means doing the right thing. And that means, to a conservative, not giving one’s sanction to somoene who woudl greatly damage the nation. And in the case of McCain or Huckabee, and to a lesse extent Guiliani, they would do nearly as much damage as the Dems. in fact, the case can be made that with a Dem it would be far easier to raise effective opposition to bad policies than with a compliant Republican liberal.
I remember my oath of enlistment. It was to the CONSTITUITON, not to a politicial party. And there was something about “All enemies, foreign and domestic”. Furthermore I recall that it had no expiration date.
So mr NON_Conservative Cat - Stuff it.
I served, put my life on hold and on the line, and you dare to question my patritism? I still give service to and have faith in this nation - the UNPATRIOTIC CHILDISH VINDICITVE (your words) person here is you, trying to force people to vote for somone who harms then nation.
You idiot. the GOP is NOT the nation. Do not commingle them, and then trash peopel who will not give their endorsement to someoen who does not uphold their conseervative valuies.
With regards to abstaining from voting, I’d like to point out that the presidential decision won’t be the only thing on the ballots come November.
I would humbly ask that you consider all the state and local elections that need your support. If anything, your votes count much, much more on the lesser offices, particularly the judges.
Abstaining from voting is not the answer.
Voting for who YOU think is the best candidate is.
Quite simply, if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the condition of the country. I never once said that I would not vote. I did, however, say that I will not be voting for the big (R). I will vote for a third party candidate, and I will sleep peacably, knowing that I voted for who I thought was best. If more people would “get” this simple fact, those “unelectable” candidates wouldn’t be so unelectable. If people voted their conscience, instead of who the group tells them can win, then this nation would be much better off.
So I’m going to vote. You may not like who I vote for, but tough cookies. I vote for who I think is best for this country. And that person is not on the Republican ticket. But I’ll vote. Then I’ll take my parse Government retirement check, a whole herd of horses, and a whole arsenal of weapons, and sit out in the Rockies waiting for this madness to pass.
Well, speaking of hissy fits, you threw a huge one.
First, you attack and insult the host who was nice enough to give you a place to spew your “Wahhhh, I want Fred Thompson!” vitriol and then you go after me. Michelle can more than cut you down to size if she decides to lower herself, and if I were in her rather exalted position as a commentator I wouldn’t either. I’m not, however, and someone should straighten your big mouth out, so I will.
I’ll make this simple and present it in numeric bullet point form so we can cut to the chase, tough guy:
1. Michelle is a commentator, not a journalist, so she can support whomever she wants and still be entirely ethically legit. Get over it.
2. Would you be railing on our host if she were as big a supporter of Fred as you are? I think not, so stuff it.
3. Many of us prefer other candidates than Mitt, but you don’t hear us going on and on personally attacking them for their choice, so you can stuff that part of your post as well.
4. The Presidency is an executive job. Thompson was in the legislative branch. Describe to me what’s on his resume in terms of actual, manifest accomplishments that he could put on his resume that makes him a qualified candidate for President of the United States. In Rudy’s case I could rattle off a dozen. Talk is cheap and easy for politicians. What has Fred ever done, manifestly, which gives him the cred to be a viable President? None of this, “I voted for this” and “I supported that” rhetorical baloney; there are millions of people in the US who can make those claims honestly. What the hell has he ever done besides talk a good game?
5. I’m not going to start off by thanking you for your service. Why? Because the right is getting too PC about that in the face of outrageousness. Kerry served and in my opinion he’s behaved like a swine. McCain served but once you put “honorable” at the beginning of a sentence anything that follows that might be negative is diluted, which is the only reason McCain is on the radar for 08. Between what he’s done with teddy on legislation and his total lack of Presidential-relevant executive experience, I don’t care if he took out ten enemy battalions with a bayonet. The election of ‘08 isn’t about hiring a retired war hero, it’s about hiring a President, and since he was never a general, he hasn’t an ounce of revent experience for the job.
6. So the same goes for you. It isn’t about endorsements anyway, it’s not even about the primary per se. It’s about sitting out the general election. If you do, that’s a de facto vote for Hillary, so all these whiners running around saying they won’t vote unless the candidate is a true conservative by their lofty and essentially unrealistic standard, should by tied up by their thumbs for betraying their country, and if you sit out your patriotic duty by not voting, yes you are not a patriot and I don’t care how many terms of duty you served. That was then, and you were a patriot, but if you shirk your duty now you are no longer. There’s no “skip a turn” card in this game. There’s no such thing as neutral inaction and freedom needs to be fought for every day. So suck it in soldier and stop your superior posturing and you’re whining. Fred is out. Deal with it. If Rudy is out I’ll support Mitt. Both have manifest records of accomplishment. Reagan did, which is what made voting for him so easy, he had it all. We don’t have that choice this time so boo hoo hoo, poor us. But sitting out the 08 election and putting Hillary into office over a temper tantrum is unacceptable and unpatriotic. In case you haven’t noticed Mr Soldier, there’s a war on, and in this one we’re all foot soldiers. So stop your bitching and do your duty, big mouth.
7. As far as my own conservatism, I suppose your opinion is supposed to be relevant to the discussion at hand, and it isn’t, but for the record just for s*its and giggles: I voted for Reagan twice and campaigned for him in his second election. But there are no Reagans this time. Am I against abortion? Yes, but guess what - Rudy has been his entire career and if you watched him get savaged by the MSM in NY year after year for emphasizing adoption over abortion (framed by the MSM as being against a woman’s right to do with her own body what she wanted) you’d know that. But even if he was pro abortion, the judges will ultimately decide that. Rudy is a “legality wonk”. He does what the law demands because he was a prosecutor, which is sometimes an unhappy route and he doesn’t whine about it; he says, “I’ll get reconstructionist judges to change the laws”. There’s nothing in his history to deflate that claim and everything to support it. In all other respects he’s a straight conservative: lowered taxes and turned a deficit into a surplus in the 3rd largest economy (let’s see Fred’s record on that), got rid of porno and street crazies in what was before that the porno/street crazy capitol of the world. Took on the mafia and mostly won, potentially as dangerous a thing to do on the streets on NY has anything any candidate has done (what’s Fred’s record on that?). I’m for Rudy not because he isn’t moderate on some issues (though his record is being distorted by the left and being fed in heavy doses to the far right so they’ll disown the one guy who can beat Hillary hands down and you and alot of other people are falling for it. I was in NY and followed it all closely so you can take my word on all this). So all this crap about not being conservative if you’re for Rudy is bulls*it, and the sooner you get it straight the better.
So, OC, I’ll repeat the question and broaden it:
8. What were Fred’s manifest accomplishments in the executive branch of anything that give him the credentials to be President of the United States (hint: they’re the same as McCain’s)
And yes, if you sit out the general election in 08 you aren’t patriotic. Maybe you were once patriotic, but if you sit this one out your aren’t for the reasons described. Childish, vindictive, unpatriotic. If you sit out 08 this means you, regardless of your past. Period. Get the picture?
Correction:
and put Hillary Clinton into office as President of the United States at a time of terrorist warfare when congress is being run by far-left socialists.
Brilliant. Congradulations. What genius. You’ll sleep better knowing you helped ruin the country. It’s all about you, right? Your conscience. Just as bad for a conservative as sitting out the vote. Nice job.
Negative, Ghostrider. Those people who decided to compromise their principles, in order to vote for someone they thought was more “electable” are the ones ruining the country.
Nope. It’s about this country. And if you want to call ANYONE selfish, how about those people who, once again, compromise their principles so that they can feel like their vote mattered. It’s the “Me too!” mindset that will do this country in. Socially, economically, and politically. Call me old fashioned, but I was raised as a principled man, by principled men. No one need guess where I stand on an issue, because I will boldly state it, and stand by those statements.
As far as putting Hillary in the White House in the middle of the War On Terror: heck, that means I no longer have to get on a plane to faceshoot boogereaters. I hate jet lag.
Idealism over practical reality. Or maybe just liberal shilling to drive down the conservative turnout. Either way your selfish arguement is intellectually dishonest, relentlessly negative, hissy-fit childish and destructive to the country. To your friends, neighbors, kids, our military and the future.
And the smarmy wisecrack about not caring if Hillary is elected shows you really don’t give a damn.
If it weren’t for idealism, everyone would lead depressing, boring lives. Either way, I don’t claim to be an idealist. As a matter of fact, I see the reality of the situation. The reality is that the Republican party is no longer representative of true Constitutional Conservatism. Instead, it has become the party of “Let’s beat the Dems!” No thanks.
How so?
Pull the other one.
Choosing to stand by my principles, and in turn voting on those principles, is throwing a hissy fit? I would dare say that name slinging because someone refuses to toe your party line is a more apt description.
The simple fact is, out of all the remaining candidates, there is not a single Conservative among them. Voting for any of them would be akin to aiding and abetting the enemy. What is more destructive: Standing in defiance of the enemy and getting trampled anyway, or giving up your principles, just to go along, and AID in the destruction of that which you hold so dear? Which is morally correct? What would a FREE MAN do?
Actually, my friends will be doing the exact same thing I’ll be doing: voting by their principles. Those principles may not be the same as mine, but at least they stand by their convictions. My neighbors? Believe me, they can take care of themselves. My vote won’t be destructive to them. Same goes for my family. Destructive to the military? Wake up and smell the java: The President doesn’t control funding for the military. Take your vote to Congress. The future? My future looks pretty darned sunny.
Read that “smarmy wisecrack” again. I didn’t say I don’t care if she gets elected. I stated (rightly, in my estimation) that is Hillary gets in the White House, that we will be fighting the terrorists on our doorsteps, instead of in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m merely looking on the positive side of a bad situation. Call me an optimist.
You bet, because there are essentially 2 electible candidates. By going 3rd party you effectively casting a de facto vote for Hillary. This is fact, not opinion. The opinion is that in so doing, you’re having a childish hissy fit, but it’s an opinion that’s been well exrapolated, so I’ll stick with it.
Or you’re a liberal shill trying to convince others to not vote also.
You are voting principal over the damage that action does and you don’t give a sh*t. That’s amazing. It also, in my estimation, makes you an unpatriotic scumbag. Sorry, but I’m just exprssing my principals.
And this in your sick, detached mind, is a good thing. Tell that to the mothers of the murdered children if it all comes to pass, creep.
Unbelieveable.
Sorry Cat, but I still have to side with Ordinary on this. MM’s site has been almsot nothing but shrill political harpings on every conservitive canidate.
That is, when she gets passed attacking Hillary/Bill/The Clintons.
At this point, considering Hunter is backing Huck, maybe Fred should tell his supporters to do the same.
If only to piss Michelle off. God knows I’ve not seen anything resembling a reasonable suggestion regarding the Republican field YET.
Thanks to sheep like you, that’s true.
No, by voting 3rd party, I am casting a de facto vote for….the third party candidate I vote for. This twisted logic that BOTH parties manipulate to get votes is disgusting. I am not “giving” the Democrats a vote by not voting Republican. I am exercising MY right, as an American, to vote for whomever the hell I want. Who are you, on your high horse, to tell me who I need to vote for?
In that case, I’ll have to stick with MY opinion that calling falsehoods facts and slinging names is “throwing a childish hissy fit”. I would say I’ve extrapolated that fact fairly well.
Two things. First, when have you seen me espouse any liberal beliefs? I’m fairly certain I’ve made my stance as a Conservative clear. Second, when have you seen me try and “convince others not to vote”? I have said that I will vote…just not for who you want me to vote for. South Park comes to mind.
And if more people would open their eyes and vote on their principles, instead of who they’re told can “Beat the Dems, yarg!”, there would be no “damage” to worry about.
Wow. So, in your estimation, one poster, who has served his country in uniform, is unpatriotic because he says he won’t vote. Now, I’m an unpatriotic scumbag because I won’t vote for your party…and when is the Fourth Reich, exactly?
And as an American, you’re free to do so. As an American Soldier, I’ll die for your right to do so.
I have told it to the mother’s of murdered children. Their sons were my troops. And guess what? They want me to go out and keep doing what I do. They’re optimists too.
Yes, you are.
I actually agree 100% with you on this, but not so much from Michelle but actually from people like OC. If you’ve been reading around I don’t have to tell you that I’ve been taking another road: asking people to qualify why their candidate is the one they chose on the basis of that candidate’s manifest accomplishments, not his thetoric. Nobody answers.
However, I wouldn;t say this about Michelle because A. she’s the host and B. I want her to spill the bad news - the good news I can often find myself, though it would be good if she posted a list of all their manifest accomplishments without any negatives at all so everyone has a comprehensive list on the flip side.
For suggestions I’ll give you Rudy: lowered taxes, turned a budget around in the 3rd largest economy in the US while increasing the quality of life: gigantic accomplishment Reagan would be proud of, and even Reagan came nowhere near that as Governor of California. No other candidate comes close.
Also, know that much of the “liberal” reports have been coming from the left that fears him to death, and it’s being fed in large doses to the right so someone Hillary can beat like Huck or McCain will get the nod.
Give me a complaint about Rudy being too liberal and I’ll give you the facts. I was in NYC the whole time and watched it all very closely. The story you’re getting is generally not the real deal. Rudy is as conservative as they get, and part of the proof is until recently the MSM had labelled him “mean” and “cruel”, always a good indicator that a conservative is doing his job right.
And enforced a sanctuary city, favors massive gun-ownership restrictions, and is pro-RvW.
There. That’s three.
No thanks. All three of the republicans who were actual conservitives have dropped out. There isn’t anyone left to like. It’s now a case of the lesser of evils, and who I dislike least.
And frankly, if I want to hear the “bad news” about the republicans, I’ll watch the network news.
And if I want news on anythng else, the three other blogs I watch usually scoop Michelle by about 2 days anyways.
How the hell do you know? Because you “read” about them like you did Rudy’s record. Your “conservative” Duncan Hunter just endorsedd the least conservative of the bunch after McCain, and that’s Huckabee. The trouble with you is when you read that someone lies,you assume the author is telling the truth without knowing the facts.
Here’s an education for you, in case you weren’t within 500 miles of NYC during that time when Rudy was mayor, which I imagine was probably the case:
I’m so tired of that bullsh*t. A. He was mayor, not governor, and immigration is a federal issue about which he had no control. He was constantly trying to get the feds to take the illegals, but the liberals under the Clinton administration wouldn’t have them. I remember how Rudy was demonized constantly by the press for being “heartless” whenever the issue came up. You’re reading ultra-left propoganda designed to do exactly what it is doing - turning you off to the front runner best equipped to beat Hillary.
That’s a past tense you should have there, because as Mayor of NY you just don’t want handguns everywhere. The normal to unbalanced quotient of a population living on top of each other like rats is something you can’t imagine unless you know the place well. He’s expressed different views on the issue nationally, and always did. That city was a powderkeg of people about to snap when he took office. No one thing is right for everyone - or everything, and NYC filled with people with handguns is insane. Unlike most places where decreased handguns increases crime because the criminals have nothing to fear from their victims, in NYC crime went down during Rudy’s watch, and went down astoundingly. You don’t second-guess that degree of success.
He never said it. he said the law favors a woman’s right to choose, and therefore so does he insomuch as he inforces the law. He’s also said, even as Mayor, that he would like to see that decision reversed. You can imagine what the NY MSM said about that! Of course, you can’t imagine because you weren’t there and you’ve only beenreading bullsh*t on the blogs. Bullsh*t you seem only too happy to repeat at the drop of a hat.
You need a serious education about the man, my friend.
However he had absolute control over what the police did with illegals. Banning them from turning them over to the feds means that this “federal issue” you speak of was never dealt with because they were never TOLD.
Do you not grasp the concept behind the phrase “sanctuary city”? The “City” part is actually fairly important.
So during his campaign, when he speaks of gun control, I should just plug my ears and go “la-la-la I can’t hear you”? Because that’s what you must do.
He is in favor of restricting MY ability to get a handgun. Explain to me how making it harder for the people who follow the law will have any effect on people who don’t give a toss about the law?
For god’s sake, he spoke of gun control laws at an NRA meeting…
So sorry, but that makes no sense. The “right to choose” frankly only exists BECAUSE of Roe v Wade, maybe the worst example of a ruling creating law.
He favorers their right to choose, but wants a reversal of the SOURCE of that right? Yeah.
He’s pro abortion. If that doesn’t bother you on some level, I fear you’re beyond helping.
Thankfully, thanks to a death-spiral in FL, he’ll be out soon. Then it will only be a choice between the lesser of three evils, not four.
Conservative Cat,
Do you really believe that your - I’ll be charitable and refer to it as “posting” - has endeared anyone to your cause?
You seem to be advocating that the frog in the warm water who is slowly cooked is better off than the frog dropped into boiling water who jumps out.
It’s true that Hillary or Obama will advocate all sorts of terrible things for this country - and they might even get some of them through. They might even get another Ginsburg on the court.
What we’re saying is “perhaps it’s time to remind this nation just what that means.”
As a people we have lost our way, precisely through the gradualism that you support. We abandon issue by issue - never to get them back - because the next candidate supports “everything but that issue.”
With Mitt it’s healthcare. With Rudi it’s abortion. With McCain it’s our borders. Etc. Which one of these do we want to abandon this time - is that the Sophie’s Choice you’re telling us we should make?
Sometimes you have to let the Prohibitionists win, just to remind everyone that nobody has the right to tell you that you can’t drink a beer.
Let’s watch a few states go bankrupt under the weight of these entitlement programs. Let’s see another city become like DC or Philly or LA where guns are essentially banned, but the gun violence literally rivals Baghdad. Let’s watch the dollar plunge to the point where oil is quoted in Euros per barrel, not dollars. Let the prisons overflow with “undocumented foreign citizens.”
At some point the political landscape will be ready for someone like Fred to step in and say “enough. This is not America anymore. I want my country back” and people will understand.
If it happens in the next few years, we can get out of the water. If it happens slow, like the frog we’ll be asleep when the poaching actually begins.
I’m gonna have to weigh in here, Cat, on the only issue concerning Rudy I know something about.
Gun control in NYC was as out of control as crime when General Dinkins was sent packing. Rudy did favor gun control, but as an NYC resident, you should know he brought crime down not by crime control, but by criminal control. When you actually arrest and prosecute the bad guys, they don’t commit as many crimes. And kudos to Rudy for that prosecution, because crime did fall dramatically. It just was not due to gun control.
As for that tired arguement that NYC is different in that it needs gun control, I get the same crap from the lefties here in CA. There is nothing different or special about NYC, even with the population density. The fundamental being missed here in CA is the state and most cities do not go after bad guys, they just tack on more ineffective gun control.
If the criminal were kept out of the population, the population could be armed to the teeth and everyone would be fine.
No, I know LA and San Fran well, Boston, sorta, Philly sorta, Miami, so-so, London pretty well, and Rome and Ontario a little but mostly - very mostly -I know NYC, and NYC is a world apart from every one one of those places. Density most certainly is the issue. Nowhere else in the world that I’ve ever seen (I need to get to Tokyo, but have no business there) is there such an intense concetration of people. The sheer density changes the human condition in fundemental ways that I’m sure you have heard psychologists talk about; in the less affluent areas in NYC, mental illness is absolutely commonplace, and NYC is the original home of road rage. No, you do NOT make it easy for every tom, dick and harry to get themselves a handgun in NYc.
Yes, Rudy was hugely tough on criminal prosecution - a good conservative thing - but you really really really don’t want every loon with a squeegee, every frustrated artist, or crack dealer, of tortured soho musician drinking himself to death on bleeker street until 4 in the morning, or a million other people walking around with a loaded piece.
I understand your concern about the crushing of 2nd amendment rights - and I appreciate Vermonts astoundingly lax weapon policies in my adopted, picture-postcard state - and those concerns are valid.
But no one thing is right for everyone or everything. easy hand gun access is insanity in manhattan, and isn’t too brilliant in Brooklyn or Queens either (Long Island is also different, and I’d relax them a bit on the island, personally). But manhattan proper is a non-stop powderkeg if you put easy handgun access into the mix.
You haven’t lived there. trust me. Rudy did not just the right thing, but the entirely obvious thing. I voted and campaigned for Reagan and have been hard conservative ever since. I wouldn’t be supporting Rudy if his record is what the propogandists are saying it is. It really is that simple.
You just don’t want every joe on the west side from top to bottom, soho, and the bronx (that’s just Manhattan proper) walking around with a handgun. You just don’t.
Why not? I’ve always been a Heinlein fan, and one of his best quotes, in my opinion, is “An armed society is a polite society.”
Yes, I’ve been in NYC, and I understand the pressures that having so many people crammed into such a small space can create. But I also understand that, if every “Tom, Dick, and Harry” was to have a firearm, they would be LESS likely to use it out of simple rage, simply because they would know that there is a good chance the other person is also armed. That’s one point.
Another point is that even if the handgun ban were repealed, every “Tom, Dick, and Harry” would not be able to own a handgun. Federal law sets the minimum standards which must be met for a person to own a firearm. State laws may augment these federal requirements, but they can not allow federally disallowed people to own firearms. By federal law, the list of “prohibited persons” includes: convicted felons, individuals with a history of domestic violence, individuals with a history of violent crime (misdemeanor or felony), individuals convicted of crimes with drugs in the last 7 years, individuals who have been adjudicated mentally defective, and individuals who are currently awaiting trial for a crime (not traffic tickets). That right there will take care of most of your “loons with a squegee, frustrated artists, and crack dealers”.
My final point is, I think, the most salient one. You are, in essence, advocating stripping an American citizen of one of their God given rights, a right that is protected by the Constitution of these United States, on sheer virtue of where they choose to live. Whatever happened to, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain, unalienable Rights: that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”? I don’t see in that statement anything about those rights only applying to people who don’t live in crowded areas. What you are suggesting is not only un-Constitutional, it’s criminal.